3
tobeselfevident 3 points ago +3 / -0

Capital gains counts as income. So they can tax your stock earnings, but not the money you put in from your paycheck. They just tricked us all by giving it its own category. Sneaky bastards.

5
tobeselfevident 5 points ago +5 / -0

Quick google search online brought up a paper arguing this point. The key point though might be this:

"Update: 10-29-21 - This topic has been to the U.S. Supreme Court as a Petition three times now, and three times the court has denied hearing their own rulings being discarded and illegal activities by the IRS allowed to continue. 19 court cases to date and all denied due process."

From what I can tell, the IRS made up a whole new category called "capital gains tax" in order to keep the ruse alive. Capital gains ARE income. Wages are not. But by creating a separate category for capital gains income, they can fool us into thinking wages count as "regular income." Something that, legally, does not even exist. All income is a capital gain. Wages are not income. You can choose to save your wages and invest them, and what you earn minus the principal after the sale of your investment can legally be taxed, but not the principal itself, which came from your wages.

But as we know, the IRS doesn't give two shits about what's technically legal. They're out to get your money, period. They know nobody wants to be the one guy who asserts his rights with no confidence that he'll be backed up by the courts, so they keep it going. Now THAT would be a case I would hope SCOTUS takes up and strikes down, because then we could probably approach the critical mass necessary to throw off the scam collectively all at once. It wouldn't even matter if they tossed out the 16th amendment because they've already stated that government already had the authority to tax income. Until we all learn what income really is, we'll continue to give the IRS a part of our salary that they don't have any legal right to.

1
tobeselfevident 1 point ago +1 / -0

Didn't have to be. SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't even necessary, as the government has always had the power to tax income.

But as another poster here just revealed, SCOTUS defined income, and wages are not included in that definition. If we want to stop paying taxes on our wages all we have to do is mark "exempt."

1
tobeselfevident 1 point ago +1 / -0

Apparently it wouldn't even matter if they did because they've already established that the amendment wasn't even necessary, as the government always had the right to tax income.

The scam was making Americans think that their work wages fell under the definition of income. People are just paying it ignorantly. We should all contact our employers ASAP and simply change our filing status to exempt.

1
tobeselfevident 1 point ago +1 / -0

Apparently that's not the issue. 16th amendment ratified or not, SCOTUS has apparently stated that it wasn't even necessary--that the government was always able to tax income from any source.

The scam was making everyday ignorant Americans think that their work wages counted as income. But the SCOTUS definition of income clearly excludes that. So we're literally all just paying taxes on our wages because...well...we're stupid.

1
tobeselfevident 1 point ago +1 / -0

From what I can tell though, the REAL scam wasn't passing the income tax amendment, SCOTUS ruled that amendment wasn't even necessary as the government always had the right to tax income. It was making sure that everyday Americans didn't know that their work wages didn't count as income. Sounds like maybe everyone needs to go back to their employer and amend their W4 to say "exempt."

1
tobeselfevident 1 point ago +1 / -0

I love this. Would you give me a few real world modern everyday examples of what WOULD legally be considered income per these definitions to help me wrap my head around this a little better?

2
tobeselfevident 2 points ago +2 / -0

Issue arrest warrants for anybody they suspect participated in the fraud, right down to old Brandon himself. That would have some interesting teeth :)

1
tobeselfevident 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's a good plan. Issue arrest warrants for Brandon, Kamala and any other person they suspect took part in the fraud. If they come to Arizona, arrest them. A few other states follow suit and suddenly we have a crisis on our hands that only the military can settle. So it has been written (by Q) so let it be done (by us).

2
tobeselfevident 2 points ago +2 / -0

If we the people stand firmly and collectively behind the truth that fraud vitiates everything, the people of Arizona can start behaving like we have an illegitimate federal government and behave accordingly, nullifying any and all actions and changes that might have affected them as a result of that fraud. Let the feds try and force them to comply and we'll see just how much support this farce administration really has.

2
tobeselfevident 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Roe v. Wade leak was pretty strongly worded, and that turned out to be true. Have a little faith, brother. Don't get too excited, but this doomer stuff just brings down the energy in here.

2
tobeselfevident 2 points ago +2 / -0

I said that two weeks ago about Roe v. Wade. Now here we are :)

3
tobeselfevident 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's been an insane few months. My hope grows a little every day.

1
tobeselfevident 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not really:

"Today, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks' A.B. 2223, which came to be known as the 'infanticide bill,' was amended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee to confirm that a woman will not be investigated or charged for experiencing miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, or 'perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero,'" the California Catholic Conference reported in a statement released last week.

"This change definitely closes the door on potential unintended consequences of permitting infant deaths due to abuse, neglect or abandonment, alleviating the concerns that the CCC brought to the author's attention," the statement said.

Kathleen Domingo, the executive director of the California Catholic Conference told the Register that the Assembly Judiciary Committee's analysis of the bill, dated April 5, "agreed that the terminology 'perinatal death' was unclear and could lead to 'undesirable conclusions.'"

The language was modified, and the California Catholic Conference announced it had withdrawn its opposition to the bill, noting state law already outlaws fetal homicide with protections for infants born alive after an abortion."

So now based on the new language if a woman neglects, abuses, or kills her baby after birth, she's still on the hook legally. The title is a little click baity in ignoring that.

1
tobeselfevident 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm fine with this. They state pretty clear that the line is viability (which Roe established as 24 weeks) except when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother (which would really be an emergency delivery, not an abortion--if you define an abortion as intentionally ending the life of the child and not just removing it from the womb). If this is where California chooses to settle on the matter, I won't cry too much over it.

0
tobeselfevident 0 points ago +3 / -3

I think some people just can't get over the fact that he lost, and struggle to believe it's possible that it was his plan all along.

3
tobeselfevident 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well...you have to start with the willingness to question or the answers will sound like nonsense to you.

3
tobeselfevident 3 points ago +3 / -0

You're right. I just checked. It shows the number of comments but not the comments. Regardless of what filter you use.

view more: Next ›